Yıl 2018, Cilt 19, Sayı 1, Sayfalar 212 - 220 2018-04-30

Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons
Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons

Volkan BİLİR [1] , Azize DİGİLLİ BARAN [2] , Sedat KARAÇAM [3]

75 103

Students come across with the notion of atom almost every year during their education life. Higher conceptual understandings of atomic theories among science teachers is of crucial importance in their understanding of physics and chemistry courses. In this sense, the purpose of the present study is to investigate which of the atomic theories science teachers often confuse and to discuss the possible reasons behind the confusion of one theory with the other. This study used the phenomenology method of qualitative research. Participants of the study were comprised of 55 first and second year university students attending the Department of Science Teaching during the 2015-2016 academic year. In order to discover the most confusing atomic theories and the reasons of this confusion, students were asked to write down the atomic theories that they often confuse with one another and the reasons why they do so. Using content analysis, two independent coders analyzed the collected data. The result of the analyses revealed that students mostly got confused between Bohr’s Atomic Theory and Modern Atomic Theory. It was also found that the underlying reasons of this confusion were that “In both theory, the protons and neutrons are found together at the center of the atom (the nucleus) surrounded by electrons spinning around it” and “students cannot differentiate between the concepts of layer, orbit and shell”, and some recommendations were offered concerning the instruction of these subjects.

Students come across with the notion of atom almost every year during their education life. Higher conceptual understandings of atomic theories among science teachers is of crucial importance in their understanding of physics and chemistry courses. In this sense, the purpose of the present study is to investigate which of the atomic theories science teachers often confuse and to discuss the possible reasons behind the confusion of one theory with the other. This study used the phenomenology method of qualitative research. Participants of the study were comprised of 55 first and second year university students attending the Department of Science Teaching during the 2015-2016 academic year. In order to discover the most confusing atomic theories and the reasons of this confusion, students were asked to write down the atomic theories that they often confuse with one another and the reasons why they do so. Using content analysis, two independent coders analyzed the collected data. The result of the analyses revealed that students mostly got confused between Bohr’s Atomic Theory and Modern Atomic Theory. It was also found that the underlying reasons of this confusion were that “In both theory, the protons and neutrons are found together at the center of the atom (the nucleus) surrounded by electrons spinning around it” and “students cannot differentiate between the concepts of layer, orbit and shell”, and some recommendations were offered concerning the instruction of these subjects.

  • Arık, A. & Polat, R., (2002). Lise Kimya 1 Ders Kitabı. İstanbul: Oran Yayıncılık.
  • Albenese, A. & Vicentini, M. (1997). Why do we belive that an atom is colourless? Reflections About the Teaching of the Particle Model, Science & Education, 6, 251-261.
  • Bahar, M., Gündüz, S. ve Doğan, S., (2006). Bilim Tarihine Kısa Bir Bakış (Editör: Mehmet Bahar) Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretimi içinde 1–32, Ankara: PEGEMA Yayıncılık.
  • Bilir, V., Digilli Baran, A., &. Karaçam, S., (2016). “The science teacher candidates’ images related to atom models”, International Congresses on Education. Sarajevo/Bosnia and Herzegovina (2-4 June).
  • Creswell, J.W. (2013). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri (Çev.ed. Bütün, M. ve Demir, S.B.). Ankara:Siyasal Yayıncılık.
  • Çökelez, A. & Yalçın, S., (2012). İlköğretim 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin atom kavramı ile ilgili zihinsel modellerinin incelenmesi, İlköğretim Online, 11(2), 452-471, 2012.
  • Demirci, S. & Yılmaz, A ve diğ. (2016). Lise ve üniversite öğrencilerinin atomun yapısı ile ilgili zihinsel modellerine genel bir bakış. Journal of the Turkish Chemical Society Chemical Education, Cilt 1, Sayı 1, 2016
  • Demircioğlu, G. & Diğ., (2012). Kavramsal değişim metninin ve üç boyutlu modelin 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin atomun yapısını anlamalarına etkisi, Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 7, Sayı 2, 2012
  • Entwistle, N. (1997). Introduction: Phenomenography in higher education. Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 16, 127.
  • Erduran, S. (2014). A holistic approach to the atom in school chemistry. Educació Química EduQ número 19 , p. 39-42
  • Gilbert, J.K. & Watts, D.M., 1983. Concepts, Misconceptions and Alternative Conceptions: Changing Perspectives in Science Education, Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98.
  • Griffiths, A.K. & Preston, K.R., 1992. Grade-12 Students’ Misconceptions Relating to Fundamentel Charecteristics of Atoms and Molecules, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 6, 611-628.
  • Harrison, A.G. & Treagust, D.F., (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry, Science Education, 80, 5, 509-534.
  • Jong, O.D. (2009), How to teach scientific models and modelling: A study of prospective chemistry teachers’ knowledge base, International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 829-850.
  • Kahraman, S. (2010). Atomun yapısı ve orbitaller konusunda geliştirilen üç boyutlu bilgisayar destekli öğretim materyallerinin öğretmen adaylarının başarısı ve tutumlarına etkisi, Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Ortaöğretim Fen ve Matematik Öğretmenliği Anabilim Dalı Doktora tezi
  • Kaya, A. (2010). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının ışık ve atom kavramlarını anlama seviyelerinin tespiti. Erzincan Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12 (1), 15-37, 2010
  • Kılıç, F. (2010). Ortaöğretim kimya ders kitaplarında atom teorilerinin sunumunun bilim tarihi ve felsefesi açısından incelenmesi ve öğretmen görüşleri, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Ortaöğretim Fen ve Matematik Öğretmenliği Anabilim Dalı Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
  • Kranz, W., (1994). Antik Felsefe, (cev) Suad Y. Baydur, İstanbul: Sosyal Yayınlar.
  • Maloney, J. (2007). Children’s roles and use of evidence in science: an analysis of decision-making in small groups. British Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 371–401.
  • Marks,K. H., (2002). Demokritos ile Epikuros’un Doğa Felsefelerindeki Ayırım. (cev) Saffet Babur, Ankara: Ayrac Yayınları.
  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). An expanded source book qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.
  • Mortimer, C.E. (2004). Modern Üniversite Kimyası, Cilt 1, Çev. Altınata, T., Beşinci Baskı, Çağlayan Kitabevi, 2004, İstanbul.
  • Oruncak, B., (2005). Ortaöğretim ve Yüksek Öğretimde Öğrencilerin Atom Kavramı ile İlgili Algıları ve Bunun Eğitim Kesiti İçerisindeki Değişimi, Doktora Tezi, S.D.Ü. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü (Fizik Eğitimi), Isparta.
  • Unver Oguz, A. & Arabacioglu, S., (2015). Helping pre-service science teachers to understand atomism through observations and experiments, Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2015
  • Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding Learning and Teaching. The Experience in Higher Education, Buckingham, U.K.
  • Patton, J. E. (1997). A life skills approach to mathematics instruction: Preparing students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 178.
  • Podolefsky, N.S. & Finkelstein, N.D. (2006). The use of analogy in learning physics: The role of representations.Phys. Rev. ST - Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020101.
  • Ronan, C. A. (1983). Bilim Tarihi- Dünya Kültürlerinde Bilimin Tarihi ve Gelişmesi.( Çev: E. İhsanoğlu, F. Günergun) Tübitak yayınları/ Akademik Dizi I.
  • Saruhan, Ş. C. & Özdemirci, A. (2005). Bilim, Felsefe ve Metodoloji. İstanbul: Alkım Yayınevi
  • Wihlborg, M. (2004). Student nurses’ conceptions of internationalism in general and as an essential part of Swedish nurses’education. Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 23, 433.
Birincil Dil en
Konular Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler
Dergi Bölümü Makaleler
Yazarlar

Yazar: Volkan BİLİR
Ülke: Turkey


Yazar: Azize DİGİLLİ BARAN
Ülke: Turkey


Yazar: Sedat KARAÇAM
Ülke: Turkey


Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { inuefd331368, journal = {İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi}, issn = {1300-2899}, eissn = {2149-9683}, address = {İnönü Üniversitesi}, year = {2018}, volume = {19}, pages = {212 - 220}, doi = {10.17679/inuefd.331368}, title = {Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons}, key = {cite}, author = {BİLİR, Volkan and KARAÇAM, Sedat and DİGİLLİ BARAN, Azize} }
APA BİLİR, V , DİGİLLİ BARAN, A , KARAÇAM, S . (2018). Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19 (1), 212-220. DOI: 10.17679/inuefd.331368
MLA BİLİR, V , DİGİLLİ BARAN, A , KARAÇAM, S . "Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons". İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 19 (2018): 212-220 <http://dergipark.gov.tr/inuefd/issue/32017/331368>
Chicago BİLİR, V , DİGİLLİ BARAN, A , KARAÇAM, S . "Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons". İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 19 (2018): 212-220
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons AU - Volkan BİLİR , Azize DİGİLLİ BARAN , Sedat KARAÇAM Y1 - 2018 PY - 2018 N1 - doi: 10.17679/inuefd.331368 DO - 10.17679/inuefd.331368 T2 - İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 212 EP - 220 VL - 19 IS - 1 SN - 1300-2899-2149-9683 M3 - doi: 10.17679/inuefd.331368 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.331368 Y2 - 2018 ER -
EndNote %0 İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons %A Volkan BİLİR , Azize DİGİLLİ BARAN , Sedat KARAÇAM %T Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons %D 2018 %J İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi %P 1300-2899-2149-9683 %V 19 %N 1 %R doi: 10.17679/inuefd.331368 %U 10.17679/inuefd.331368
ISNAD BİLİR, Volkan , DİGİLLİ BARAN, Azize , KARAÇAM, Sedat . "Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons". İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 19 / 1 (Nisan 2018): 212-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.331368